On Mar 1, 11:13 am, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things > that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context > managers. > For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct. It needs to have a > useful > life as a third party package for a few years before you should propose it for > inclusion into the standard library. By all means, distribute a design > document > for comment before you implement things; it's a reasonable practice. But don't > bother with a PEP yet.
So, I went and re-read PEP 1, and in the fine print it directs me to PEP 2. Mea culpa -- I though I understood the PEP. Nonetheless, the fact that I created what I call a "PEP draft" seems to have had more read into it than I meant. I will bear this in mind when I start future projects. I have a couple of projects, and contribute to another, which in no way should wind up in the standard library. But I find the lack of a good, up-to-date, configuration reader in the library to be an issue, which is why I had the temerity to try to start a discussion on what a good standard configuration file reader should be. Yes, I would like to create something compelling enough to go into the standard library. No, I don't expect it to wind up there for a very long time, if ever. BUT, at the same time, following the PEP format is very valuable for my project. It forces me to think more deeply about the problem I am solving and it forces me to write down some documentation. Really, it's no more burdensome than any other similar useful template. Or, to put it another way, it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to write a module that anybody would want to use; that is good enough to put into the standard library. Whether this happens or not, one useful tool to help the module down that path (and produce a better module for me and other users even if it never becomes part of the standard library) is to think about what it takes to get into the standard library. Part of this involves writing the PEP. Writing a PEP is a good exercise; the format itself helps me to focus on important issues. So I was writing the contents of the PEP anyway, just for me. The real question, then, is when to release the PEP (vs. the code). I've already got some coding done, but it is not yet good enough to share, and if there is anybody else out there grappling with the same issues at this time, I would prefer not to go into production with it until they have had a chance to look over the design and offer insights and criticisms. Best regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
